Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Frazers]

None of the above for me thanks

Do you decide your own rent prices? How much money do your tennants get left with after they pay you your money? (Your answer makes me suspect you are completely detatched from the problem and blithely assuming you aren't ruining the economy with your practices.)

1. Yes. I set them a good deal below the average (which isn't bad business as you claim) so I can ensure a pick of quality tennants
2. That really does depend on their circumstances now doesn't it and what type of property they take. In addition i'm one of those evil bastard landlords who will touch those on housing support.

[Ostroeuropa]

Only extremists are proposing we scrap capitalism. You do understand there is a difference between Neoliberal Capitalism and traditional capitalism, right?

Or are you one of those people who goes "MUH CAPITALISM!!!" whenever we propose a regulation. Or welfare.

Yes but the person I was responding to was a syndicalist, So I assumed they wish to scrap capitalism.

And yes I understand the difference between Neo-Liberal capitalism and those that preceded it.

I'm not anti welfare or regulation and I think both are necessary; we could probably do with a bit more welfare in general and a bit more regulation in certain sectors.

Good. Then I have no problem with you.
I'm also a syndicalist in the corporate sense. I dunno if you saw my post on it. There isn't anything preventing a syndicate-economy within capitalist bounds, or indeed, running along side capitalist companies.

It keeps free markets and all that.
Theres a method of doing it that I prefer, which is basically that anyone who works for a corporation gets 1 share of stock to vote with. No non-workers may vote with stock.
Wages would be abolished, instead, every worker gets a share of the corporate profits determined by the collective.
(The current progenitor is the Mondragon corporation, which uses:

Unskilled labour - 1 share
Skilled Labour - 3 shares
Management - 5 shares
Upper Management 7 shares)

System.
thus, upper management will only EVER receive 7 times the pay of the lowest paid work, and that pay is ENTIRELY dependent on how well the corporation functions.
If profits go up, everyones wages go up. If profit goes down, everyones wages go down.

This model makes firing people (for reasons other than incompetence or bad behaviour) obsolete. We no longer have to fire people because times are tough. People will willingly leave when their pay goes down. (Too many workers sharing not enough profit. Those willing to leave will do so. If noone wants to leave, then there is no problem.)

Imagine it as basically a form of socialist-corporation.
It means you can entirely scrap things like workplace-health acts, since the workers of the company are going to vote for healthier working conditions anyway.
And if they dont vote for them, who are we to say otherwise? They know the risks best.
The importance of the vote is that it allows workers to fire incompetent managers by voting them out, which can be vital. Ofcourse, it is NEVER in their interest to fire an actually competent manager. Doing so would hurt their incomes.
It also means that every worker has a vested interest in the corporation doing well. If it does well, they get more cash.
It minimizes laziness. Every worker knows they get a share of the profit, so why laze?

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you decide your own rent prices? How much money do your tennants get left with after they pay you your money? (Your answer makes me suspect you are completely detatched from the problem and blithely assuming you aren't ruining the economy with your practices.)

1. Yes. I set them a good deal below the average (which isn't bad business as you claim) so I can ensure a pick of quality tennants
2. That really does depend on their circumstances now doesn't it and what type of property they take. In addition i'm one of those evil bastard landlords who will touch those on housing support.

It's bad business in the sense that you aren't profiting as much as other landlords. They get to expand quicker than you do. While you may be a good landlord, the fact is, the system as it is currently set up incentivises sociopathic baron behaviour and that, in turn, breaks the economy.
Practically every landlord here will LOVE a person on housing support, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
A person on housing support will never be fired.

[Sanguinea]

That may be true in some places, but not all places (for ex. many places in africa). Also the dramatic rise is probably due to the development in infastructure, and technology.

But you can't separate the rise in development, infrastructure and technology from the Capitalist system as its the system that allowed and produced these things.

It's also true, Globally. Living standards have raised by a lot for some and a little for others but living standards have still increased. You also need to remember that the your living standards raise much faster the lower down the scale you are: If you go from $10 a day to $100 a day the difference will be much higher than if you go from $50,000 to $500,000.

Incorrect, the capitalist hierarchical system had nothing to do with all the advances its advocates claim for it, it is the market system of distribution. The market and capitalism are not one and the same.

[Murkwood]

Social Darwinism. There will never, ever be an "equal" society.

[Vissegaard]

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

This has no informational value, since we only come to know your expression of dislike towards capitalism. How, for every known deity, it does destroy humanity?

Darwinism=Natural selection=Evolution=Progress= Survival. See? Simple equation. People need to struggle in order to keep alive.

[Bythibus]

Yes but the person I was responding to was a syndicalist, So I assumed they wish to scrap capitalism.

And yes I understand the difference between Neo-Liberal capitalism and those that preceded it.

I'm not anti welfare or regulation and I think both are necessary; we could probably do with a bit more welfare in general and a bit more regulation in certain sectors.

Good. Then I have no problem with you.
I'm also a syndicalist in the corporate sense. I dunno if you saw my post on it. There isn't anything preventing a syndicate-economy within capitalist bounds, or indeed, running along side capitalist companies.

It keeps free markets and all that.
Theres a method of doing it that I prefer, which is basically that anyone who works for a corporation gets 1 share of stock to vote with. No non-workers may vote with stock.
Wages would be abolished, instead, every worker gets a share of the corporate profits determined by the collective.
(The current progenitor is the Mondragon corporation, which uses:

Unskilled labour - 1 share
Skilled Labour - 3 shares
Management - 5 shares
Upper Management 7 shares)

System.
thus, upper management will only EVER receive 7 times the pay of the lowest paid work, and that pay is ENTIRELY dependent on how well the corporation functions.
If profits go up, everyones wages go up. If profit goes down, everyones wages go down.

This model makes firing people (for reasons other than incompetence or bad behaviour) obsolete. We no longer have to fire people because times are tough. People will willingly leave when their pay goes down. (Too many workers sharing not enough profit. Those willing to leave will do so. If noone wants to leave, then there is no problem.)

Imagine it as basically a form of socialist-corporation.
It means you can entirely scrap things like workplace-health acts, since the workers of the company are going to vote for healthier working conditions anyway.
And if they dont vote for them, who are we to say otherwise? They know the risks best.
The importance of the vote is that it allows workers to fire incompetent managers by voting them out, which can be vital. Ofcourse, it is NEVER in their interest to fire an actually competent manager. Doing so would hurt their incomes.
It also means that every worker has a vested interest in the corporation doing well. If it does well, they get more cash.
It minimizes laziness. Every worker knows they get a share of the profit, so why laze?

Okay, you've got me halfway convinced. Where can I read more?

[Ostroeuropa]

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

This has no informational value, since we only come to know your expression of dislike towards capitalism. How, for every known deity, it does destroy humanity?

Darwinism=Natural selection=Evolution=Progress= Survival. See? Simple equation. People need to struggle in order to keep alive.

You misunderstand evolution.

It isn't progress. It's adapting to the current situation.

[Frazers]

1. Yes. I set them a good deal below the average (which isn't bad business as you claim) so I can ensure a pick of quality tennants
2. That really does depend on their circumstances now doesn't it and what type of property they take. In addition i'm one of those evil bastard landlords who will touch those on housing support.

It's bad business in the sense that you aren't profiting as much as other landlords. They get to expand quicker than you do. While you may be a good landlord, the fact is, the system as it is currently set up incentivises sociopathic baron behaviour and that, in turn, breaks the economy.

I'm profiting more than others I know of precisely because I am a good landlord. I set prices lower therefore attract a greater pool of potential tennants from which to choose from. As a result I can more tightly control my risks as I, and most of those in my position, have had the nightmare situation of having a property trashed by idiots. The cost of repairing such damage can and does greatly outweigh any deposit taken. In addition to that I attract much more long term tennants because of my reputation of being fair and reliable.

Sociopathic behaviour is bad for business. A bad reputation well and truly screws things up.

Edit : And no housing support is god awful to deal with. It rarely comes in on time, the tennants are unable to make up any shortfall, and the idiots administrating it all couldn't give a shit. You're talking about people being detached from reality yet you seem to be of the belief that the government are slick and efficient when it comes to those on benefits? Really?! Look at listings and see how many add the point that they don't accept those on benefits.

[Ostroeuropa]

Good. Then I have no problem with you.
I'm also a syndicalist in the corporate sense. I dunno if you saw my post on it. There isn't anything preventing a syndicate-economy within capitalist bounds, or indeed, running along side capitalist companies.

Okay, you've got me halfway convinced. Where can I read more?

I dunno man. It's not written on much, because everyone is too busy focusing on the MUH CAPITALISM vs MUH COMMUNISM debate.

[Universal Socialism]

Yes but the person I was responding to was a syndicalist, So I assumed they wish to scrap capitalism.

And yes I understand the difference between Neo-Liberal capitalism and those that preceded it.

I'm not anti welfare or regulation and I think both are necessary; we could probably do with a bit more welfare in general and a bit more regulation in certain sectors.

Good. Then I have no problem with you.
I'm also a syndicalist in the corporate sense. I dunno if you saw my post on it. There isn't anything preventing a syndicate-economy within capitalist bounds, or indeed, running along side capitalist companies.

It keeps free markets and all that.
Theres a method of doing it that I prefer, which is basically that anyone who works for a corporation gets 1 share of stock to vote with. No non-workers may vote with stock.
Wages would be abolished, instead, every worker gets a share of the corporate profits determined by the collective.
(The current progenitor is the Mondragon corporation, which uses:

Unskilled labour - 1 share
Skilled Labour - 3 shares
Management - 5 shares
Upper Management 7 shares)

System.
thus, upper management will only EVER receive 7 times the pay of the lowest paid work, and that pay is ENTIRELY dependent on how well the corporation functions.
If profits go up, everyones wages go up. If profit goes down, everyones wages go down.

This model makes firing people (for reasons other than incompetence or bad behaviour) obsolete. We no longer have to fire people because times are tough. People will willingly leave when their pay goes down. (Too many workers sharing not enough profit. Those willing to leave will do so. If noone wants to leave, then there is no problem.)

Imagine it as basically a form of socialist-corporation.
It means you can entirely scrap things like workplace-health acts, since the workers of the company are going to vote for healthier working conditions anyway.
And if they dont vote for them, who are we to say otherwise? They know the risks best.
The importance of the vote is that it allows workers to fire incompetent managers by voting them out, which can be vital. Ofcourse, it is NEVER in their interest to fire an actually competent manager. Doing so would hurt their incomes.
It also means that every worker has a vested interest in the corporation doing well. If it does well, they get more cash.
It minimizes laziness. Every worker knows they get a share of the profit, so why laze?

If only we could make this an actual corporate model and put it in action.

[Vissegaard]

Darwinism=Natural selection=Evolution=Progress= Survival. See? Simple equation. People need to struggle in order to keep alive.

You misunderstand evolution.
It isn't progress. It's adapting to the current situation.

You misunderstand quantum physics. It´s always the current situation
Progress is about the current situation aswell, since we have to survive in presence. And survival is the goal of progress.

[Greater-London]

Incorrect, the capitalist hierarchical system had nothing to do with all the advances its advocates claim for it, it is the market system of distribution. The market and capitalism are not one and the same.

How do you have a market system without capital? the systems are intertwined unless you have some sort of barter system. Even then all your doing is replacing capital with goods that have a certain type of 'worth' attached to them, using money just makes it easier!

The driving force behind development is "what benefits can I get from this?" as such the desire for more capital has caused business to expand which in turn provides investment and employment. This raises living standards.

[Ostroeuropa]

You misunderstand evolution.
It isn't progress. It's adapting to the current situation.

You misunderstand quantum physics. It´s always the current situation
Progress is about the current situation aswell, since we have to survive in presence. And survival is the goal of progress.

The ship is sinking. Your argument is that we just stand here and let some people drown.
Other people are arguing we should man the buckets and fix the hole.

And you think your argument is the right one.
Ok.

[Ostroeuropa]

Incorrect, the capitalist hierarchical system had nothing to do with all the advances its advocates claim for it, it is the market system of distribution. The market and capitalism are not one and the same.

How do you have a market system without capital? the systems are intertwined unless you have some sort of barter system. Even then all your doing is replacing capital with goods that have a certain type of 'worth' attached to them, using money just makes it easier!

The driving force behind development is "what benefits can I get from this?" as such the desire for more capital has caused business to expand which in turn provides investment and employment. This raises living standards.

That's one of the driving forces.
Another driving force is a desire to provide a service or commodity to the community.
The problem with neoliberals is that they think "What benefits can I get from this" is the only force, and the problem with communists is that they think the desire to help the community should be the only one. As an example, charity and such. Two of my friends run business based on a "Wouldn't this product be neat?" kind of basis, and they live comfortably enough.
Both seek to alter the human animal to fit their ideology, rather than alter their ideology to fit the human animal.

[The Grim Reaper]

Okay, you've got me halfway convinced. Where can I read more?

I dunno man. It's not written on much, because everyone is too busy focusing on the MUH CAPITALISM vs MUH COMMUNISM debate.

I was an anarchosyndicalist for a brief period when I was interested in the topic but also didn't have the time to research anarchist thought.

Now that I do, I've reverted to a tentative platformist anarchist (read: indecisive) view. There's considerably more literature on anarchosyndicalism, but IDK how much that differs from your run-of-the-mill economic syndicalism, if the two are even at all comparable (again, when I was an anarchosyndicalist, I basically just tacked the syndicalism part on).

If you're really starved for resources, at least it's something.

[Sanguinea]

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

This has no informational value, since we only come to know your expression of dislike towards capitalism. How, for every known deity, it does destroy humanity?

Darwinism=Natural selection=Evolution=Progress= Survival. See? Simple equation. People need to struggle in order to keep alive.

I never said struggle or inequality weren't part of life, however I don't have such basal, animalistic expectations of human discourse. Cooperation has played as big a part in the survival of man as competition.

Capitalism saps the life from humanity by creating an environment that prizes only material profit, and promotes the acquisition of wealth without consideration for ethics. Capitalists strive to hoard resources for themselves, and are leeches to their communities, draining the wealth from the lower classes and keeping them in a cycle of subservience.

[Ostroeuropa]

I dunno man. It's not written on much, because everyone is too busy focusing on the MUH CAPITALISM vs MUH COMMUNISM debate.

I was an anarchosyndicalist for a brief period when I was interested in the topic but also didn't have the time to research anarchist thought.

Now that I do, I've reverted to a tentative platformist anarchist (read: indecisive) view. There's considerably more literature on anarchosyndicalism, but IDK how much that differs from your run-of-the-mill economic syndicalism, if the two are even at all comparable (again, when I was an anarchosyndicalist, I basically just tacked the syndicalism part on).

If you're really starved for resources, at least it's something.

I despise the anarcho-syndicalists for ruining our reputation frankly. If people regularly associated capitalism with anarcho-capitalism it'd be the same thing.

[The Grim Reaper]

I was an anarchosyndicalist for a brief period when I was interested in the topic but also didn't have the time to research anarchist thought.

Now that I do, I've reverted to a tentative platformist anarchist (read: indecisive) view. There's considerably more literature on anarchosyndicalism, but IDK how much that differs from your run-of-the-mill economic syndicalism, if the two are even at all comparable (again, when I was an anarchosyndicalist, I basically just tacked the syndicalism part on).

If you're really starved for resources, at least it's something.

I despise the anarcho-syndicalists for ruining our reputation frankly. If people regularly associated capitalism with anarcho-capitalism it'd be the same thing.

I despise other anarchists for ruining my reputation :C

edit: that being said, I won't say more on the topic because it's the wrong topic >.>

[Divair2]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

[Vissegaard]

The ship is sinking. Your argument is that we just stand here and let some people drown.
Other people are arguing we should man the buckets and fix the hole.
And you think your argument is the right one.
Ok.

Dafuq you are talking about? If you just stand there, you won´t survive, since you need to eat, breathe or, in some cases, swim (if the ship is sinking). However, you can´t neither eat, breathe nor swim for the others.

[Ostroeuropa]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

MUH CAPITALISM

[The Grim Reaper]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

They're neoliberals, not ancaps ;-;

[Ostroeuropa]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

They're neoliberals, not ancaps ;-;

What's the difference. Other than neoliberals allowing the government to fuck around in our personal lives. So they are kind of worse.

[Universal Socialism]

Incorrect, the capitalist hierarchical system had nothing to do with all the advances its advocates claim for it, it is the market system of distribution. The market and capitalism are not one and the same.

How do you have a market system without capital? the systems are intertwined unless you have some sort of barter system. Even then all your doing is replacing capital with goods that have a certain type of 'worth' attached to them, using money just makes it easier!

The driving force behind development is "what benefits can I get from this?" as such the desire for more capital has caused business to expand which in turn provides investment and employment. This raises living standards.

That isn't always the case. Look at roads and bridges private companies don't own those because they can't directly profit from those, but they were made by the government for the sake of public good.